This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

Please note

If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.

Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).

Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published this (copyright related) crossword which you can play online at http://thedod.github.io/eff-crossword-2014/. It makes a nice break from feeding yourself with Christmas treats. Happy holidays everyone. Fæ (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2014‎ (UTC)

After a delay in updates to the Structured data on Commons project, I wanted to catch you up with what has been going on over the past three months. In short: The project is on hold, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening.

The meeting in Berlin in October provided the engineering teams with a lot to start on. Unfortunately the Structured Data on Commons project was put on hold not too long after this meeting. Development of the actual Structured data system for Commons will not begin until more resources can be allocated to it.

The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany have been working to improve the Wikidata query process on the back-end. This is designed to be a production-grade replacement of WikidataQuery integrated with search. The full project is described at Mediawiki.org.This will benefit the structured data project greatly since developing a high-level search for Commons is a desired goal of this project.

The Wikidata development team is working on the arbitrary access feature. Currently it's only possible to access items that are connected to the current page. So for example on Vincent van Gogh you can access the statements on Q5582, but you can't access these statements on Category:Vincent van Gogh or Creator:Vincent van Gogh. With arbitrary access enabled on Commons we no longer have this limitation. This opens up the possibility to use Wikidata data on Creator, Institution, Authority control and other templates instead of duplicating the data (what we do now). This will greatly enhance the usefulness of Wikidata for Commons.

To use the full potential of arbitrary access the Commons community needs to reimplement several templates in LUA. In LUA it's possible to use the local fields and fallback to Wikidata if it's not locally available. Help with this conversion is greatly appreciated. The different tasks are tracked in phabricator, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89594 .

At the Amsterdam Hackathon in November 2014, a couple of different models were developed about how artwork can be viewed on the web using structured data from Wikidata. You can browse two examples here and here. These examples can give you an idea of the kind of data that file pages have the potential to display on-wiki in the future.

The Structured Data project is a long-term one, and the volunteers and staff will continue working together to provide the structure and support in the back-end toward front-end development. There are still many things to do to help advance the project, and I hope to have more news for you in the near future. Contact me any time with questions, comments, concerns.

User:Keegan (WMF) says that «volunteers are continuing to add data about artworks to Wikidata.» This is intriging: Why are Wikidata volunteers entering data instead of building/improving the database functionalities? The task of curating media files, which includes adding data about artworks, belongs to Commons — and it is surely being done. Are these volunteers duplicating Commons’ efforts? That’s bad. Are they merely transfering, or piping-through, data from Commons into Wikidata (which is the right thing to do), and User:Keegan (WMF) is misrepresenting this, causing unaware people who read the above to overestimate Wikidata’s curating efforts and ignore Commons’? That’s also bad. -- Tuválkin✉ 19:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Nothing new that wikidata is ignoring other projects. Wikidata has also ignored our interwiki link schema (was discussed a while ago on VP). I heard on irc that they like to replace our category system with tags etc. It is verry hard to get informations what they like to do on commons and how many money thy spend for this wikidata stuff. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I don't believe I'm misrepresenting anything. Some volunteers are copying data about artwork from Commons over to Wikidata. Multichill is doing most of the work so he might be able to elaborate better for you, or you could follow the links in the paragraph that you are quoting from to find more information which would likely address your concerns. @Steinsplitter: category systems are not going to be replaced by anything here. As the post that I made states, the process is on hold and even so it's been stated from the beginning that nothing has been set in stone about how this proposed system will work. There's a hub here on Commons with details and ideas about the project if you're looking for information. As to how much money is spent on Wikidata (questioned below), I have no idea. I'm no where near important enough to be involved in that sort of decision making. Wikimedia Deutschland might be able to give you better numbers since they're the primary sponsor. Since the project is on hold, you're not likely to see any changes to Commons anytime in the near future. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Is there any information available about this proposed "tag system" ? That would be great and much more convenient than categories (but will take a lot of efforts for tagging everything) --- [Tycho]talk 17:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hot air, the topic of tags vs. cats has been discussed on and off for several years. Keep in mind that the active Wikidata community is much smaller than the Commons active community. Just because one or two people run around promoting an idea, does not mean that Wikidata is actually going to run after them.

There are a couple of experienced Commonsists involved in pushing wikidata forward. If any approach were potentially damaging for Commons, I'm sure it would be flagged for attention here early on. --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Keegan (WMF): Can you please elaborate how much money the WMF spend for "wikibase for common" and what software changes are coming on commons in the next monts/years. Thanks in advice --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. What is current situation with stereographic image formats support - JPS and MPO files ? It seems a bit wrong to extract a single frame and upload it separately. Would be nice to have a native support with automatic generation of appropriate preview image and possibility to download original file. --[Tycho] (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

there are no plans currently that i am aware of,but.. sounds easier than most of the requested formats. What would be an appropriate preview? One of the frames, both frames side by side, red-cyan stero, consider it paged media with 2 pages (i lean towards last one)? One slight issue is that those formats arent supported by image magick. Bawolff (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the most meaningful way would be single image preview (so those files can be used as a general purpose images in articles) and switchable between anaglyph, side-by-side, crosseyed, interlaced views on it's details page. Paged media sounds reasonable, but AFAIK one rarely needs to use them separately. For me it's important to have at least ANY way to store stereoscopic files in native format because creating stitched pair in plain JPEG, uploading a separate mono-version and being unable to download it in ready to use form seems way too counterproductive. --- [Tycho]talk 23:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just as an aside, if you change the extension to .jpg, MediaWiki won't realize its a MPO, and just display one frame of the file (probably; haven't tested). Bawolff (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrgh. I usually don't check bot edits closely, because I assume they are part of someone's thought-through plan, but lately I'm beginning to wonder. Here's another. How can we have had a batch bot edit to place photos directly into Category:Houses by association in the United States, which is a meta-category that should only contain categories? - Jmabel ! talk 07:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no pictures directly in Category:Male humans. There are (at this moment) 556 photos directly in Category:Female humans. Recently, someone added the latter category to some of my photos, which is how I became aware of it.

I really dislike this. It seems like a reduction of women to their gender rather than seeing them as fully human. I particularly dislike this when it is done to photos I took, because it feels like reduction of the subjects of my photos to their gender.

I agree with above. I warned this user, but he continue editing nevertheless, so I blocked him for 2 hours. And I removed this category with VFC. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann. Even though I'm an admin, I always hesitate to do something like this without having some sort of indication it's not just my solo view. I've suggested to him that if this is (as he now says on his talk page) part of a process of classifying more deeply that he use a hidden category as his temporary holder. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Being 'bold' about this (since it seems obvious) I added {{Categorize}} to both, which might help in the future. Revent (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chenspec: Use {{user category}} instead of {{hiddencat}} for this, please. Other than that, don't know why anyone would complain about it as a temporary manrker. Revent (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Revent: Excellent - done. Now, how do I pass the pictures to the new category? Need to restore ... Chenspec (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a user category is more appropriate, sorry I didn't think of that. And I'm not sure what you mean by "passing" pictures to a category. You can place them in a user category or hidden category exactly like any other category. - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel: All the pictures were removed from the category "Female humans" and it took me a long time to collect them. Do I have to find them again manually So I can categorize them in "Category:Temporary categories for User:Chenspec Cat-a-lot - Female human", or there is a way to restore them more effectively? Chenspec (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If you know who removed them, they are probably all more or less in a row in his/her contributions list. Failing that, your own contributions list would probably have them reasonably close together. And, yes, that categorization seems appropriate to me. Sorry you got blocked on this, I didn't mean to take it to that level but I guess that happened before we had time to discuss it calmly. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It's OK - The main thing is that everything worked out for the better. I will try to restore the pictures. Thanks for the help and guidance for the new category! Chenspec (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noting here for the record, just added (per a request on Yann's talk page) 583 images previously added by Chenspec to 'Female humans' to his user tracking category. More useful than would be apparent at first glance, nearly all are images of Wikipedians in various contexts with no categorization other than 'this is a Wikipedian'. Revent (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I understood that it does not matter what pictures I put my user category. Regarding your question - there are pictures that fit more than one category, according to what you see in them. If there are more categories they will be eligible to I'll put them, if not then do not. I hope this answers your question Chenspec (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the announcement, odder. We in the campaign team were not sure if it was appripriate to announce a campaign run on a commercial website for a specific user here. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice campaign. It is better done than previous ones. Maybe too much figures, I would have emphasise the description of the volunteer and his work (with a quote or an example of a photo report). Some remarks for the next campaigns: i) for a commonist, we should see his work on the main page, ii) avoid specific terms commonly used on Wikimedia (FP, QI) or explain them, iii) don't forget to create an hashtag to make a viral campaign. Pyb (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You may be right about the balance between facts about Jee and the campaign and slides with pretty pics. In a previous version of the promotional video for the campaign, there were many more pretty pics, so at least that aspect has improved, and I think the balance depends on the target audience - which was actually a bit hard for us to establish. Should we target Wikimedians or a completely different audience? We tried to do a bit of both, but it appears, so far that the the vast majority of donations is from Wikimedians with a high concentration of active Commons users. Maybe, as the campaign progress, it will attract a wider audience. Anyway, it seems like we are not doing too bad as 93% of the pledged amount have been sponsored already here on the launch day and there is still a month to go . (This should not keep people from donating though, as there is plenty of other useful gear, which could be of use for Jee (macro flash, bag, tripod, remote control, wildlife lens, spare battery, ...)). --Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

i) I am not sure I understand what you mean about seeing his work on the main page? Do you mean the Main Page of Commons? Do you mean today? I am sure several of Jees pics have been picture of the day previously. I do not think it would be appropriate to try and coordinate a campaign done on a private web page for a single user with the Commons Main page.

ii) I am not sure I understand this thing about avoiding specific terms either. We do not mention the acronyms FP or QI anywhere. We mention featured pictures in the campain text explaining they are among the finest and linking to the actual Commons page. In the campaign video featured pictures is mentioned, but I do not think it necessarily needs further explanation at this stage. I think most people would understand that featured is something that somehow stands out as being especially good (which is sufficient).

iii) A hashtag is probably a good idea. I have no experience when it comes to hashtags and how that can aid the campaign. You mean something like #MacroLensForJee ?

I wonder if Pyb's comments refer to the Commons page where we planned the campaign, rather than the Indiegogo campaign itself? I can't really match the comments up with either the video or campaign page. I (and I suspect Slaunger) are too old for this hashtag stuff, but if anyone here is more social-media-aware and wants to help make this viral, please do so or offer suggestions on the User talk:Jkadavoor/campaign page. We set a modest target for the campaign but there's plenty very useful equipment that could be purchased if the goal is exceeded. -- Colin (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I refer to the previous campaigns which didn't succeed or didn't succeed very well (Poco a poco, Tony the Tiger and Ryan Hodnett). I've nothing to say about Jkadavoor campaign because I like it ;) Pyb (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So, we do have clients, like a for-profit outfit, yet we fund expenses on goodwill, like a non-profit. Sweet. What could ever go wrong…? -- Tuválkin✉ 19:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tuválkin, as I don't speak very well english, can you precise please, is it a question or is there an issue for Commons maybe? -- ChristianFerrer 21:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

People who send eMails to Wikimedia eMail addresses are called "customers" (English→Malayalam→English translation might have made this "clients") in OTRS, by the software. Regarding the lens, I think it's WMIN's job to fund its purchase (and lend it the WMUK Mac mini way). FDMS 4 20:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

FDMS4 It would be nice if WMIN sponsored such projects, but from browsing their site it does not appear to me that they have any kind of grant program. They have a lot of information about how to donate to WMIN, not the other way around AFAICT. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if WMF + regional groups did more grant making for things like this. But it doesn't seem very high priority to fund individuals or they want to attach all sorts of strings (a loan rather than gift). -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In regards to grants, WM-AU has a camera equpment program. I got the large equipment support grant ($1000) which covered half the cost of my camera but I did reinvest the $1000 for a 50mm lens, more SD cards and a flash unit a few years ago. Bidgee (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Slaunger: There is a Grants page, which redirects to a page called "Microgrants". However, no matter matter whether they would, I just think they should fund such projects. FDMS 4 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That grants page seems a bit dead, with nothing listed as "approved" for ages. There are differences between Australia and other developed nations, and India and other developing nations -- camera equipment costs about the same yet wages and labour and local costs are hugely different. This may influence whether it is more cost effective to locally-fund activities such as training or hiring rooms vs purchasing equipment. And anyway, the money comes from donations whether via WMF or our own efforts. But I would like WMF to consider funding such grants, which are cheap compared to the cost of organising a conference or paying US salaries. -- Colin (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Btw, in case anyone where Jee is, he's had to go away for a short while for family reasons, so doesn't have wiki access. I'm sure he's very touched, as I am, by the generosity and goodwill shown. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy to report that the modest target of $750 has been met in one day. Clearly we underestimated the generosity of the Commons community. We were encouraged to set a low target since failure to meet the target incurs hefty penalty fees from Indiegogo. But there is more equipment that will be very useful for Jee, from the essential components of every serious photographer's kit (good camera bag, tripod) to the specialist equipment to take the best macro pictures in poor light (a macro flash). So further donations are very very welcome and will be wisely used. Of the 1000-odd photographs Jee has uploaded to Commons so far, more than half are illustrating Wikipedia articles, which is a strong measure of high quality educational photography. -- Colin (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is Ravi from Wikimedia India. I am happy to know about Jeevan Jose's excellent work and the support he has been receiving from the community both on-wiki and off-wiki. Wikimedia India is well aware of needs like these and has put a Infrastructure Scholarship program in place for providing equipments and services that enable more and better contributions from already active community members. Wikimedia India is working under a limited budget. But, we will try our best to meet such needs. This is done under a FDC grant from WMF. So, in principle, the larger movement recognizes and supports needs like these.

As Bidgee points out, there are also precedents in the Wikimedia World.

The most recent innovation that is beneficial to the broader Wikimedia movement is our wmau:Proposal:Camera equipment program, which supports volunteers and improves Wikimedia Commons. Before the WMAU program was approved in January 2012, the committee had approved one small grant for camera equipment in July 2011 (wmau:Resolution:Toby Hudson's Small Grant). With the program in place, we have approved reimbursement for camera equipment purchases of $1600, and are currently reviewing another application for reimbursement of $500.

</quote>

Having said these, I would also like to highlight that grants for equipments like these have to be properly accounted by each organization according to the laws of the countries they have been registered. Some times, it can be impossible or may involve lot of paper work (especiallywhen foreign grant money is involved) and risk in case of damage or loss of the equipment. So, it is up to each organization to figure out how to support these needs. But, there is no second opinion that movement funds should be used for meeting such needs. Thanks.--Ravidreams (WMIN) (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The precedents aren't particularly impressive or indicative of a healthy regular grant support for Wikimedians. The one for 99of9 (Toby Hudson) wasn't (from what I read) a "scholarship for the purchase of camera" but a grant of $200 towards a $900 macro lens he was buying. In return he promised a certain number of usable images, which has been achieved. The Australian program page looks fairly dusty (is there another page where applications are discussed/approved?) and seems to have rather stiff requirements (such as 1000 images in 1000 categories). It seems more concerned with quantity than quality (size requirements of 1000px are ridiculously meager and indicative of a history by some of only donating small size images to Commons while retaining full-size images for commercial sale). The India program has offered $79 towards the loan of a scanner. I understand the limited budget, which is why I think this is something WMF should be looking at, for whom $79 is small change. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I know of WM-AU, it is almost a zombie chapter, slowly eating its way through funding and offering very little back to the community or Wiki projects, arguably with the exception of those photography grants I suppose. I have a feeling that it's largely down to the lack of interest of its members, and partly due to the large geographical distances making it hard for members to meet and organise... I recently asked why WM-AU hasn't been involved in Wiki Loves Monuments, and the response was that nobody was interested in organising it. It's a shame. Australia is a relatively 'new' country but it has plenty of interesting 19th century monuments, and certainly not devoid of talented Wikipedian photographers (although history shows that the wildlife and landscapes are more of an interest than buildings!). Diliff (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Diliff: I don't think that's a fair characterization. I'd say it's simply a small chapter in comparison to some of the behemoths we know and love. I'm not on the committee but am a happy member. There is very significant support from WMAU for activities in the GLAM sector (see the GLAMWIKI newsletter for month-by-month details, including stacks of library training and engagement). It's not always financial (because as you say we haven't applied for major central funding, apart from the country-based fundraiser). The committee networked with Wikibomb+ and Wikimedia in Higher Education organizers to provide volunteer support. The photography equipment grant scheme discussed above is still in operation, and although the numbers sound low, there are not that many of us contributing high volumes on Commons. Commons also benefits from the GLAM relationships: I now have ~monthly contact with State Librarians in my state who are now established Wikipedians in their own right, and have managed to convince their institution to properly acknowledge the permission status of out-of-copyright works, enabling mass uploads of 12,000 items of historic media so far. And that's just the stuff I've benefitted from... There's also been a lot of work on wikitowns, and I believe there is a standing offer to support meetups (which is sometimes taken up in Melbourne). @Gnangarra: and @Kerry Raymond: are both Commons contributors on the current committee and may have more to add (sorry if I left out others). To find out more, please consider attending Wikiconference Australia 2015, another event they are organizing. --99of9 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to stand corrected then! I'd like to see the chapters more involved, but I guess we can't magic interested participants out of thin air, and it has to happen organically. Australia used to contribute a lot more active photographers in the past than seems to be the case now. I know that the images we see on QI and FPC are just the tip of the iceberg, but there used to be more active participation from Aussies than seems to be the case now. For what it's worth, I will one day soon (this year or perhaps next) be returning to Australia, so I suppose I shouldn't upset my future local chapter. :-) Diliff (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to have a conversation about WMAU and WLM, but the problem is not the organisation of it. The problem is that that we must upload datasets of monuments to the WLMdatabase. In most cases the datasets (which are maintained by a number of govt agencies plus some non-govt ones) are not avaialable to us. For example, we could do it for Queensland because I have negotiated access to that dataset, but we could not do it for most other states. To collect and enter all that data manually is a massive task, which understandably nobody is very keen to do. Also we wanted to include war memorials, which are very important culturally in Australia and particularly significant with the Gallipoli cententary approaching, yet we were told our war memorials were not acceptable for inclusion in WLM. If WLM would be more flexible about its requirements for participation, then we would probably be taking part. Also, our chapter is very active in outreach with programs of edit training and public talks (for any group or individual that asks us) at no cost (see our Past events page for details). We are rolling out hundreds of new articles using content that we have negotiated CC-BY access, we have the two WikiTowns projects running, etc. We have the camera scheme as previously mentioned. Where we have not been so successful is in organising local meet-ups, as turn-out has been pretty discouraging and we really don't know what we can do to improve that. So I am really not sure why people might think us inactive; perhaps we are just too busy doing things to have time to blow our own trumpet. Kerry Raymond (talk)

@Colin: I agree that the WMF should (centrally or via chapters) expand something like the WMAU Photography equipment scheme more broadly. Contributing photos to Wiki*edia can be much more costly than contributing words to Wikipedia. IMO it was good to start with requirements on the stiff side, and small co-contributions ($200 of $900) to ensure the system is not gamed, and goes to genuine contributors rather than those in it for the $$$. Maybe other schemes could set a lower bar but achieve this with a strong oversight and screening process instead. Like you, I argued for quality (specifically the QI process) as a metric when the scheme was being set up, but it was considered complex as it is, and Wikipedia often values images that fill an important niche more than super high quality that we snobs on Commons look for. --99of9 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

. Although it's great that we're a repository for the world's media, we have to keep in mind that most of it gets very little traffic. One great image that is used in multiple articles on multiple language Wikipedia articles is (IMO) much more valuable than ten or one hundred sub-par images of some obscure object or building, only a couple of which could ever conceivably be used on Wikipedia. Both ends of the spectrum have their place and I'm certainly not saying we should sacrifice one for the other, but the potential utility of an image should be a factor in valuing it and I think those super high quality 'trophy images' of the sort that feature in POTY should be a strategic goal of Wikimedia chapters just as much as bulk dumps of images from GLAMs. Diliff (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, I took a series of photos at the Harvard Natural History Museum, e.g. File:Epomophorus labiatus Harvard.jpg. As you can see, that's not going to win any POTY competition, but it happens to be our best only photo of the Ethiopian epauletted fruit bat. OTOH, File:Swallow flying drinking.jpg is a striking photo, but the descriptions don't agree on what species it is, and the mainspace pages it's actually in use on have a good selection of alternate images for whatever species it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

QSA media. 4572 images, 204 total image uses and 156 distinct images used across the Wiki projects, meaning 3.7% of them are used at least once.

CSIRO media. 3527 images, 603 total image uses and 314 distinct images used across the Wiki projects, with 8.9% of them used at least once.

99of9's QI media. 143 images, 1246 total image uses and 139 distinct images used across the Wiki projects, with 97.2% of them used at least once.

Diliff's FP media. 156 images, 11685 total image uses and 154 distinct images used across the Wiki projects, with 98.72% of them used at least once.

This is not an attempt to toot my own horn (but toot toot!)... It just goes to show that user-generated content, particularly the 'best-in-class' images are orders of magnitude more useful to the Wiki projects. Whether this is because they are genuinely more useful images, or whether they are used more simply because the users who created them have more of an incentive to find appropriate homes for them, I don't know. I suppose there is the relative obscurity of QSA and CSIRO's images compared to the more commonly referenced subjects that most of us tend to photograph. Either way, it seems like a strong case for the Wikimedia chapters valuing user-generated content. Diliff (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that someone who is going out and photographing content that they know is needed in existing articles is always the most valuable contribution, because those people both upload to Commmons and then use the photo in articles. But we have plenty of people just uploading photos for which we don't yet have articles, just as we have people writing articles for which we don't have photos, but slowly the two do converge. I write a lot of new articles and I am often amazed at how often I find a photo on Commons uploaded many years earlier, so a photo unused today isn't a never-used photo, just a not-yet used photo. And collections like QSA (which I know intimately as I categorised most of it) which are bulk uploaded will also slowly start to get used more as time passes, but of course I would never expect them to be as heavily used for two reasons: being out-of-copyright means they are mostly old low-res black-and-white images - of course we'd prefer high-res colour images where we have them. Secondly, bulk uploads tend to have a particular collection focus and possibly have too much on niche topics. For example, the QSA has hundreds of images of the construction of the Story Bridge. OK, we will never need all of them for Wikipedia articles, but we can and do include the Commons Categories in the article for anyone wanting more images that don't get included in the GLAM tools reporting. As I mostly write historical articles, I do draw on those collections. Can any Commons contributor take a photo for me of a 19th century politican? For historical people and historical events, we do depend on GLAM uploads to a large extent as our only source. Wikipedia's coverage is currently strongly skewed to the present day. We need both kinds of contributions. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Diliff: GLAMorous is a super-useful resource. To make the case you are suggesting, you first should tick "Main namespace only", whereupon my percentage drops to 70.63%... but more importantly it's worth notionally dividing the usage by the effort+expenses. For me the effort required to upload the entire QSA database was roughly equivalent to obtaining one Featured Picture! or about 20 QIs. Anyway, I don't think we're really arguing - I totally agree that Chapters should continue to value and support user-generated content. But they should also continue to support GLAM content. --99of9 (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ravidreams (WMIN): What do you mean by "there is no second opinion that movement funds should be used for meeting such needs"? Are you looking for a second chapter to set up a similar scheme (cf Wikimedia CH have a lending scheme that seems quite productive)? Do you take the absence of a second scheme as an indication that the chapters/communities disapprove of using movement funds this way? --99of9 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If I were to offer advice to another chapter or similar thinking of running a Camera Scheme, I would say "don't have too many rules, instead trust the judgement of your own people". It's tempting to add lots of rules about quality, quantity etc, but as the conversation above demonstrates, different images are useful in different ways. And you can over-worry about people gaming the system. The rules should never be "tick these boxes and you get funded". They should be more guidelines of "these are what are likely to make your application successful". If you pick a small group of people in your chapter who are active on Commons to make the decisions, they will easily be able to assess if the person is making a good faith effort to contribute useful photos or just gaming the system. The "quality trap" is that past contributions may be made in low-res because the person is using old equipment, but, if you helped them upgrade to newer equipment, then their future contributions would be higher quality. The scheme should always be focussed on what they will do in the future with the camera, not what they did in the past (other than as a demonstration of their commitment to good faith contributions to Commons). I note as well as the Camera Scheme, WMAU also has a general Volunteer Support Scheme to assist financially with any reasonable expense needed to contribute to Wikipedia in some way (again, using past contributions as an indicator of good faith applications). This includes things like reference books and travel to specific locations and events relevant to the person's normal areas of contribution.Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Local or on-wiki knowledge plus AGF is more important that 1000 images in 1000 categories (I'm struggling to think who might qualify for that and who I also regard as a great photographer?). And yes, local travel expenses might be one way to help a photographer rather than equipment, particularly if the local expenses are cheap vs imported electronics. Please do away with low-res thresholds. There hasn't been a camera made in the last 10 years that can't do a decent 6MP image. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I came across this image of a wartime radar system in Europe. This is clearly taken by Army personal, the only people who would have seen one in the field. Yet the Smithsonian claims copyright on it. Do we, as in the case of other examples, ignore their claim for these cases? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

From what I see, they don't seem to be explicitly claiming a copyright in this particular image (they credit it to the National Archives). The Smithsonian's Terms of Use make it clear the 'general' copyright claim on their website is to "the compilation of content that is posted on the SI Websites, which consists of text, images, audio, video, databases, design, codes and software" and that "the Smithsonian does not necessarily own each component of the compilation." They just seem to engage in the (highly questionable, but common) practice of telling users they must license anything obtained from their website regardless of if they actually own the copyright in the particular work. Revent (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The institution is free to make whatever claims they wish, even if they are not legally enforceable. If they have added value in the metadata, such as writing descriptions or adding lots of structured detail, then they can make a valid claim of creative ownership for that metadata. Automatically created metadata, such as what the source was, details copied from elsewhere, or basic facts like a date or the original author/photographer, are not creative enough to make a claim for.

If anyone wished to scrape information and images from the si.edu, it would be a smart move to first write to the website contact and explain what the plan was, and give them a chance to object to it and explain if they have a legally valid claim that you may be unaware of. Putting aside this specific case, as I expect the Smithsonian to encourage open knowledge, if an institution were to issue take-down notices or legal challenges against a Commons uploader, having a previous good faith correspondence on record would be a great way of dismissing such actions. --Fæ (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the Smithsonian is part of the U.S. Federal Government, so it's questionable whether they can have copyright. {{PDUSGov}}. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam, I believe the Smithsonian is actually something of a special case (though I'm not sure of the details and it wouldn't apply to this photo). As I understand it, a lot of their work is created by contractors who are not technically federal government employees, and so it can be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The US Government can not (in most cases) claim copyright in it's own works, but can own copyrights transferred to it by others (this is explicitly stated in 17 USC § 105). Not that this applies here, but to state that the US Government cannot own a copyright is mistaken. Revent (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

i do not see a copyright claim here. you are making a guess about who took the photo. having had conversations with smithsonian people: they have a legal department, and practice of trying to pay for digitzation with fees. they tend to put NC on PD images. however, they do not issue takedown notices for PD claims over their NC. the smithsonian institution is a hybrid with federal support and private money. they are a repository of government and private collections, i.e. you cannot know what the copyright of an item is, but with research of the metadata on a case by case basis. we can go to the National Archives, who is the repository of the Naval Photographic Center, and find this item, or related film [1] but it does not appear to be digitized there yet. see also [2]Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Institution is not the US Government. It publishes copyrighted materials on a regular basis, and actually pays photographers itself for its publications. Trying to say "you are the government so you do not own what bears your copyright notice" is unwise. [3] is clear. If they assert copyright, then you must abide by their terms of use. Collect (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I do not think anyone is trying to say that copyright is not a 'real and valid concern', as you put it in your edit summary. It's simply that, with experience, Commons editors have learned that assertions of copyright from certain sources, including the Smithsonian, need to be evaluated critically (hence the discussion). This image, for example, is on the same website, with exactly as much of a 'copyright assertion' made. Are you going to claim that it's not usable on Commons because the Smithsonian asserts a copyright? Revent (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that folks who conflate the Smithsonian and the US Government are making an exceedingly grave error. The proper procedure is to contact the Smithsonian as they ask, and ask whether that particular image is covered under any copyright, not to assert "the Smithsonian can not assert copyright on anything" because that position will fail the second a lawyer sees it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

not very grave at all: nobody died from wishful thinking. and since they have not issued a DMCA, you would have a greater chance of federal court with a FOP german statue photo, where we have cases of a DMCA. in this case the metadata is pretty clear PD-USGov, but lets go scanning at Archives II where the original is. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 00:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay; if I assert copyright on that picture, then must you abide by my terms of use? A bullshit assertion is bullshit coming from me or them. Wikipedia says "More than two-thirds of the Smithsonian's workforce of some 6,300 persons are employees of the federal government" and by law, anything those employees create as part of their employment is not covered by copyright. It's true that the Smithsonian is the effective origin of a lot of copyrighted work, and it's rather unfortunate that it's a waste of time to try and contact them to get the correct legal copyright status of much of their work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

welcome to the internet. this is a common institutional attitude, that the researchers will come to them. the institutions tend not to have drunken the "free" kool-aid of license purity. the world does not exist to give you clear licenses. beware, you cannot separate the employees into fed and non-fed. they work on both fed and non-fed funded projects. and they are not going to share their time sheets for your convenience. you also have institutions sending nasty notices asserting "sweat of the brow"; and institutions not partnering with commons because admins don't like their name. it will take a long time hand holding, to change institutions. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 14:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

My friend Rob Ketcherside recently remarked on Facebook, "I've noticed issues with thumbnails on some Wikimedia pages [when linked on Facebook]. I think it's a problem with their [that is, our] template. Opengraph thumbnail might not be set properly." I'm not sure we are even using Opengraph on our pages, though I think we should be. Does anyone know more about this? - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

4 can be achieved to a large extend by simply searching for "svg incategory:Y" (link) this will also catch some extra stuff you don't want but in the results you can do "ctrl-f" and then search for ".svg" another way (for categories with up to 200 files) is to go to the category you want to search (link) and above the media files (below the header) you can select the filetype, however I've found this to only work for small categories as it only filters the 200 results on the current page. For point 3 you can simply use the user uploads page and search again with ctrl-f for .svg (only works for up to 500 files). There are likely other and better ways to achieve this (for example using API-queries), these are however some quick and easy ones to start with. Basvb (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. For the first one, I found the category has to be quoted if its name contains more than 1 word (svg incategory:"Historical SVG maps in Greek"). For the second, I am afraid I have not been able to see where to select the filetype yet... I have tried searching for it in a small category] but I did not find where to filter by filetype within it... Maybe I need to enable some configuration option to see it?--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ow I forgot you can also use catscan, that scales up better. I've looked it up and you indeed have to enable a configuration, namely the "GalleryFilterExtension". Mvg, Basvb (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Aha, I can see the extension menu now! Good indeed for quick filtering... Thank you for the tip on catscan. It seems to be more complex than I expected or else I am doing something wrong, though. If I try something simple like "Categories=Maps of the Battle of the Nile+Last change Max age=24" I should be getting a couple of maps I have uploaded a moment ago but I get nothing... I guess I need to check somthing else in the form to make it work...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

When using the search on commons, I find doing intitle:svg can be a good (not perfect) way for finding things with a specific file type. You may also be interested in fr:Spécial:Fichiers_les_plus_liés. All four of these queries can be done via sql access (For example: #1 [4], #2 [5], the last two can also be pretty easily done as well), but that's probably two complex to be usable by average commons user. Bawolff (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind too. About the URL, I did not know the tool but, though relatively complex for me I think I could manage to create the queries I need by comparing with others and it does look very flexible... However, I wonder where we can find the different fields and variables available to build the query. Is there a list somewhere or does it have to be deduced from the output of a query to a file? Thank you again for all your suggestions.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Just one quick question related to the SQL syntax to use: would it be possible to filter also by category name text? For instance, would this be feasible:

SVG files with "map" in at least one of its categories, linked 5k-10k times from the French Wikipedia & uploaded during the last month.

Playing around with the tool, I got as far as this (searching for "map" in the file name but not in the category as I do not know how to search the categories or whether this is possible at all). I think I would be able to add the time condition using the above examples but I have no clue how to check the categories...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Delta_chelsea_corkscrew706pq.jpg is marked (apparently incorrectly) with multiple copies of {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}, as well as the "Shared Experience License." This appears to be the only image using this license on Commons. The text of the license is here. While it seems intended to be a copyleft license, it has some of the old issues with the GFDL license (such as the requirement to include a complete copy of the license with all copies, with no linking provision). As is, we seem to not actually be in compliance. Do we really want to allow this? Is it worth the effort needed to 'properly' use this for a single image? I'm dubious. Revent (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(nods) I wasn't specifically saying that it's GFDL-like-ness makes it incompatible, but for the GFDL we also have a locally hosted copy of the complete license text (so it's part of the 'collective work' of Commons itself). I just wonder about it being worth the effort to 'fix it' for the case of a single file (we would also really need a 'machine readable' template). Revent (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Its not a single file, though apparently a single source. If the license is compliant with Commons (which will need someone to read the legal text carefully), then the files should be kept and not deleted on basis of license alone. "Can't be bothered to create license template" is not a deletion reason.

The dual-licensed files need careful checking, to see if the dual licensing is actually valid. I am suspicious as they all say "copyright Steve Mann", but appear to be from multiple different users.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice finding those, I just searched for the name of the license instead of links to it (the one I noticed wasn't 'dual licensed' in that matter). You're completely right that it's not a deletion reason, per se, my 'dubiousness' was based mainly on that I've seen discussion in the past about other unusual licenses that seemed to lean that direction, and that it seems to me as if this license text might itself be a copyright violation of the GFDL (which prohibits modification). There are significantly long verbatim duplications. If that's the case, I don't think we can host the local copy of it we would really need to comply with it... a bit circular. Revent (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Revent asked me for my opinion on this. Here it is. The Shared Experience Licence isn't valid and can't be used on Commons. The terms of the licence require us to provide a copy of the licence text, which we're not doing and which we cannot do, this renders the licence invalid. The reason we cannot provide a copy of the licence text, in the way we used to do with the GFDL licence, is because the Shared Experience Licence licence text is itself a pretty blatant copyright violation, being a modified version of the GFDL licence. The GFDL licence text cannot be modified and isn't itself licenced under the GFDL licence (my word, circular referencing there). That may also render the licence invalid in and of itself, but that's probably something that needs Legal's opinions on. Whilst I'm thinking about it, our pages containing the text of the GFDL Licence are also potential copyright problems, since they claim to release the Text of the GFDL Licence under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence and that isn't the case - see the footer at Commons:GNU_Free_Documentation_License for details of the problem. Nick (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on my (and Nick's) opinion, it's my intent unless someone objects to DR any images using this license that do not also have a compatible license, and strip to just the compatible license on the rest. Any complaints before I do so? Revent (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The last thing Commons needs is a home-made GFDL licence, particularly one with copyvio issues itself. It is ironic that the author expects people to respect his work as a photographer without respecting GNU's work as licence drafters -- which can't be cheap or easy to do (even if I think their licence is daft). -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, on further examination, I see it's a wrapper for {{Artwork}}. I'm looking for a template for non-artwork objects, such as items in a museum collection, which have some of the same metadata (accession number, Wikidata) and some new parameters/ parameters needing different labels (material, maker). Is it best to adapt {{Artwork}}, or fork it? Is there another template in use already? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

For all options I'd pick {{InFi}} (Information Field) and inject whatever I'm missing into {{Information}} at other fields=. Almost always {{igen}}, sometimes {{credit line}}, but an "institution" also works (without i18n, {{InFi}} is no crystal ball.) I don't trust {{artwork}}, it is far too complex for my purposes. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I like to think about {{Information Field}} as sort of last resort option mostly used to create templates based on the basic COM:Infoboxes. It makes wikitext less readable and people often do not use it right. I am not sure what is to trust of not to trust in case of {{Artwork}}, as it is mostly straight forward template. --Jarekt (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A report of the Top Ten most thanked and "most thanking" is on meta above, with the top ten every month over the past 13 months. There was a general discussion about the report on wikimedia-l and an initial set of Wikimedia projects included is shown at meta:User:Faebot/thanks.

A special thank you to the ten valued Commonsists below. --Fæ (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

SCNR to add the tracker. Background: With one POTY vote left for two pictures I checked why one was discussed on dewiki talk:Kurier#POTY. Turned out to be boring, but the discussion about the thanks log on this page with so far two privacy bug reports, one dewiki opt-out, jokes on wikimedia-l about how bots abusing the feature would be easier than bots evaluating it, similar stats for meta and dewiki, and the completely unrelated Special:Userprofile/Fæ (example) feature were quite entertaining. I hope the FaceBook=127.0.0.1 fraction still represents the bolshewiki. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A statistics about nothing. It is like some people on Wikipedia seriously believe that the most "productive" users are those with most new articles created (including redirects, disambigs,...). Quantity instead of quality. I'm really not sorry to be absent in this table. --A.Savin 08:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is a harmless statistic, but I acknowledge that a few people feel strongly about it. Some people most appreciate the collegiate and social aspect of contributing to our projects, while others focus content creation or gnomic matters such as tweaking code. However the numbers are used, it should be kept in mind that there are people that work hard for our projects in "real life" or behind the scenes on code and hardly use this feature or are hardly ever noticed on-wiki.

Nobody has to pay much attention to the thanks notification feature if they don't want to. It's just a bit of fun, so I actually agree that they are "a statistics about nothing", but I created these tables as an asset for that part of our community that believe that this form of communication makes our volunteer environment "nicer". --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Here on Commons are some pictures uploaded 2007-06-19 that might be copyvios (same user uploaded other pics as "own" from different sources, like Alex Sell[7] and a french(?) page[8]). My question is: is there a licens given for these pictures? Or might they be copyvios by themselves (there are also pics from featherside). It would be a loss to delete them all, they are also used to illustrate articles.

Eight years ago, too late for simple TinEye researchs. The uploader sticked to two camera models and some images without Exif, all about your Pigeon topic. And you already invested time for the Konigsberg Morehead. I'd assume good faith and vote keep for INUSE. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To me the first four powers of 10 in this SVG appear as identical blobs in any browser window I can create. Is it possible to fix this file? Otherwise I doubt it's utility for illustrating the Powers of ten article on en:WP and elsewhere. RichFarmbrough, 02:26 1 March 2015 (GMT).

The utility is up to editors at "en:WP and elsewhere", as they are the one deciding which graphics to use. But I agree that the creators of this graphics failed at show first 4 powers of 10 and I doubt that anybody will be able to show objects differing at 12 orders of magnitude on one graph. --Jarekt (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be done as a video (a surf on Youtube will find a few that go from sub-atomic particles and zoom out to the entire known universe with a powers-of-ten countdown) however unless you show a logarithmic scale, it cannot be done in a static graph as the resolution would have to be 1012 pixels wide. --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the cube route of 10^12, or 10,000 pixels? But still way too big to fit within a 2000 pixel image. Delphi234 (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

…where are they in Commons? Here the tantalizing catalogue in Brazil’s National Library, but I could not find a single entry among Common’s photos credited to Pedro II of Brazil (1825-1891), let alone the mentioned25 thousand. Any ideas? -- Tuválkin✉ 00:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Any better link on that Brazil National Library thing? Because that one comes up empty for me. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a quaint weird thing: I didn’t noticed it before, but you need to click on the button with a big bold ">" on it, next to the search box where there’s already pre-filled the search term "colecao|d.|teresa|cristina|maria". The search lists items which are mostly photos or photo collections and links to their descriptions (the book icon), but is shows no photos, not even a tiny thumbnail. It is like they don’t want to have it online at all (maybe because they know it would be impossible to enforce an exclusive copyright?). -- Tuválkin✉ 02:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Diamond Trust of London - Kickstarter.webm defaults to a shit quality transcode in the player. There is no setting to change the version being played back in the default viewer. The only way to get the original quality is to open up the file manually in the browser, bypassing TimedMediaHandler. Fairly sure this is a bug. - hahnchen 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it really should be choosing the original file as the source on browsers supporting webm. (The reason it only does crappy transcodes is because the height of the video is less than 314px high, and the smallest webm transcode we do is 360 px high. But in these cases its supposed to use original webm). Problem appears to be in player javascript. It works correctly with js disabled. Bawolff (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Silly TimedMediaHandler. It detects the video as video/webm; codecs="vorbis, vp8", but refuses to play it because it thinks it only supports video/webm; codecs="vp8, vorbis". This is definitely a bug. Bawolff (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this file - File:SoutheastAustralia MapLocator.png. It is good for using for ranges for southeastern Australian organisms but is the licencing a problem...also...does Tasmania look a little big on this? Do we think it is fixable? Casliber (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)